Pro-Prop 8 Door Knockers Out and About

I got a knock on my door last Saturday morning from a pleasant looking fellow, about 40, who had a big clipboard and a giant “Vote” button on his shirt.

He asked if I was a registered voter.  I am.  He asked if I was familiar with Prop 8.  I am.  And he asked if I had a strong position on it.  I do.  I asked him what side of the ballot question he was on.  And he said “I’m for the Pro-Prop 8 and we’re asking to perserve the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.”

More after the jump.

I told him I was against Prop 8 and aksed him which one of his civil rights he’d like me to vote on?  He said he didn’t want to argue.  I asked if he’d like to roll back the definition of Marriage to 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia) or 1948, (Perez vs. Sharp), or if we should just go back to the days of arraigned marriages.

I asked him if he was out on behalf of a church group.  He was. I suggested he read Matthew 25 and he countered with Leviticus.  I asked if he had eaten shrimp or pork recently, because Leviticus says that’s a sin too.  I told him his church was free to decide who could be married in that faith, but as long as the state issues licenses, gay marriage is a civil right.

There are a number of church groups organizing Pro-Prop 8 political activities.  Shouldn’t Jerry Brown’s office be looking into these activities for violations of the separation clause? 

  5 comments for “Pro-Prop 8 Door Knockers Out and About

  1. anon
    August 26, 2008 at 10:55 am

    You’d probably have a better chance of nailing them on their non-profit, no-tax status than on a separation clause violation.

  2. Travis
    August 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

    The “separation clause” is a limitation on government, not churches. As Anon said, this would be an IRS issue. As long as there is no candidate involved, the IRS follows some “tests” to determine if the tax-exempt status is in jeopardy. These provisions would probably exclude the gentleman that you spoke to:


    Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

  3. August 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    You’re too nice, Dan: I would’ve told them to leave immediately.

  4. RHackett
    August 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Gustavo,

    I won’t speak for Dan. But I sort of enjoying debating with folks like Pro 8 crowd similar to the way I played with ants and a magnifying glass as a kid.

  5. The Captain
    August 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Previous posters are right.

    1. Spearation of church/state is designed to keep the state out of religion, not religion out of the state (there is a difference).

    2. The real issue with churches doing this is with the IRS.

    Anyone who doesn’t like churches involved in this kind of thing should examine whether it is ok for groups like planned parenthood or the sierra club to get involved in campaigns. Both are subject to the same and/or similar provisions of the tax code. All of these groups (i.e. churches, planed parnthood, and the sierra club) are smart – they know who to go right up to the line without crossing it. Any slipups are usually attributed to individual members who aren’t representing the orgnaization and the organization doesn’t have any problems.

    I agree with RHackett, I like to debate those who are less rational than me. That is why I come here :)

Comments are closed.